Some Troubling Comments on Covid-19 by Some Conservative Acquaintances

First, full disclosure. My wife is an ICU nurse, and she is thus on the front lines of this pandemic. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t worried for her safety, and for the wellbeing of my family. I don’t think those outside of the medical profession understand what a major pandemic means for people like us. For the most part, the people I will be quoting in this post are white, privileged, and not at risk. So I find it particularly disturbing when they spread both misinformation and - as I will note - veiled threats. 

***

While most of my friend list these days are rational people who accept science, seek the common good, and so on, there has been an increasingly troubling trend among my right-leaning acquaintances to take, um, interesting positions on things, particularly those in which the actions of a certain president (or party) might be seen in a bad light. This week, I saw a few posts which I left alone because I had no interest in getting into a fight, but that have really made me think and consider exactly what is going on here. I decided to write a bit about them, and why I think they are seriously problematic. Let’s start with one which is a 100% partisan issue. 

“We need to be honest and call it the Chinese/Wuhan Virus.”

This one comes directly from The Toupee Who Shall Not Be Named and his white nationalist advisers, but the GOP in general seems to be pushing this. There are several problems with this, so let me work through them one at a time. 

#1: It openly encourages racism and xenophobia

Il Toupee, pretty obviously, has a worldview which says that bad things come from “those people,” meaning non-Americans in general, but particularly people with darker skin. This has been obvious throughout his life, but on full display from the beginning of his campaign. In the most recent speech, he pushed (AGAIN!) for his wall, and blamed other countries. So, at minimum, this is part of a calculated play to rile up Trump’s xenophobic base - and stir up xenophobia and support for xenophobic policies. 

But it’s more than that in practice. Chinese (and other Asian) restaurants have seen business dry up. Incidents of hate and hate crimes against Asian Americans has increased. (I have a few friends who have experienced this first hand.) So this isn’t just of academic interest. It is an obstacle to seeing a pandemic virus as something we all have to come together and solve. If we are focusing on blaming the “other,” we miss an opportunity to collaborate. 

This has been obvious in the US response to the pandemic: refusing WHO tests, excluding foreign nationals while failing to screen citizens, and insisting until recently that the whole thing was a Chinese and Democrat hoax. 

#2: It misses that the virus could have originated anywhere

Throughout recorded history, viruses have jumped from animal species to humans. This is well documented. But even more than that, our very DNA shows strong evidence of cross-species transfer dating back to the rise of mammals. This is something that we humans have dealt with and will continue to deal with because it is fundamental to how life on earth works. Anywhere there is human/animal contact, viruses will jump. 

Not only that, but our modern situation makes this even more likely. As habitat destruction occurs, animals are forced into contact with humans. Likewise, as humans push into former wilderness, contact occurs. Climate change will also stir things up by changing ranges for various species, bringing them into contact with each other - and us. 

#3: It obfuscates the frightening parallels between China’s mistakes and ours

Trump fans - and Republicans in general - seem unwilling to see or admit the similarities between China and the United States. The whole “China is Communist, we are Capitalist, so we never make the same mistakes” is a strong ideology. Although beyond the scope of this post, China is far more capitalist than the American Right realizes. It is just unusual in that it is both totalitarian AND capitalist, which is a combination we are not used to. But it also makes the grave error to think that it is China’s Communist traits which were at fault. Rather, it was more broadly human failings - and the failings of a certain kind of politician specifically - that were at fault. 

Let’s look at the factors here that led to this:

Lack of regulations for food safety and animal contact

We need to be honest about this. Not too long ago, the US was every bit as vulnerable. (Read things like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle for more on this.) 

But how much better are we? As a nation, our methods of raising meat are pretty lax compared to, say, Japan, or most of Europe. We have tens of thousands of animals crammed into tiny cages and kept in unsanitary conditions. We are an accident waiting to happen ourselves. 

Historically speaking, the most common nexus between humans and animals for disease has been poultry and pigs. And guess what? Which animals are raised in the factory farm way here in the US? That’s right: poultry and pigs. So it was really just chance (and the fact that China is a huge place with a lot of people) that led to this coming from China. It could easily have started here. 

And let’s also be honest about this: The GOP and Trump have been working to roll back regulations - including food safety regulations. So they are actually making it more likely that the next pandemic will originate here.

Political suppression of information

It is absolutely true that China suppressed information about the outbreak. It is also true that this was done for political purposes - to keep the Dear Leader from bad news. It is also true that China punished a whistleblower. 

It is also absolutely true that Trump did the same thing. That’s the problem with autocratic narcissists in power. Regardless of the economic or political system, they act in a predictable manner. When pandemics are involved, this causes problems. 

Republicans need to stop with this “blame China” thing and take a hard introspective look at how their policies, and their own Dear Leader are problematic and counterproductive in dealing with a pandemic.

#3: It misses a lesson of history

Have you heard of the “Spanish Flu”? Yeah, probably. That was our last deadly global pandemic, about 100 years ago. But did you know that the Spanish Flu did NOT originate in Spain?

That’s right:

The Spanish Flu did not originate in Spain.

The reason it is associated with Spain is that during World War One, Spain was a neutral country. Because of that, it had no incentive to suppress information about the flu, but openly reported infections and deaths. Unlike countries like the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and so on. They suppressed information because if they reported deaths, it might encourage the enemy. 

There are several hypotheses as to where the Spanish Flu originated. Some have proposed a British military base in France during the war. Others think Chinese laborers may have brought it. But there is also the possibility that it came from...wait for it...Kansas. A military base in Kansas. There is no definitive evidence, in part because we didn’t have tests, and much evidence wasn’t public at the time. 

In any event, the important thing here isn’t exactly where it originated as the fact that it could plausibly have originated anywhere - but the country that first went public got the blame. 

So, in summary, insistence on blaming China for the pandemic is counterproductive. It encourages racism and xenophobia, it ignores the common risk factors that the US shares, discourages collaboration, and misses the lessons of history. 

“The CDC is lying: the death rate is actually really low.”

There are some variants on this one, but the common thread seems to be the idea that the REAL problem is that this is being blown out of proportion, is not really a big deal, and that we should just go on with business as usual. Related to this is conspiratorial thinking that some combination of China/Democrats/the Media want to hurt Trump, and thus manufactured a crisis to tank the economy. 

Frankly, this is troubling. 

Let me tackle a few of the claims to show what is going on here. 

Because we haven’t tested that many people, the death rate is artificially high

It is true that we have tested very few people here in the US. This is actually really troubling to medical professionals and scientists, because it means that we likely have a ticking time bomb of infected people out there. 

Here is why the experts believe the death rate is actually a lot higher than the flu: there are countries who HAVE tested extensively, and have a pretty good idea about the rates. 

It is one thing to say China is still lying. (It’s plausible, although not certain.) It is another to say that ALL of the following countries are lying:

South Korea: has tested far more people by percentage of population than any other. It has also been successful at containing the outbreak by testing, tracing contact, and quarantines. Because of this, it has a huge body of evidence of the rates of serious complications and fatalities. South Korea is also a free country, and has no incentive to fabricate a pandemic. Also, because the US is a big trade partner, why would it try to destroy the US economy?

Taiwan: also has mostly contained things through testing, quarantine, and tracing. Also no friend of China, and depends on the US. 

Iran: has credibility problems, but it seems unlikely that it would fabricate a deadly pandemic in its own country. Also, we have satellite photos of mass graves. It seems like a stretch. 

Italy: In order to believe this is a hoax, you MUST believe that Italy is lying. That it doesn’t in fact have a healthcare infrastructure stretched past the breaking point, with some patients going without care, an overwhelmed funeral industry, and a high death rate. Why would Italy do that? It has no particular hate for the US, it is a free country, and no big friend of China. 

Spain: is in much the same place as Italy, with a disturbingly high death rate, and a higher testing rate than the US. Why would Spain be lying?

Great Britain: is arguably our closest ally, has a similarly incompetent and racist goofus as a leader, and is certainly not Communist. And yet, Britain too is showing a troubling infection and death rate, and is prepared for worse. Why would Britain be lying about that? 

So, to believe that this is somehow just an overblown media panic, you have to believe that ALL of these countries are in on the conspiracy. Really? 

And now, the most troubling of all:

“If this turns out to be overblown, people need to be held accountable.”

This one was shocking to me to hear, particularly from a legal colleague who should know better. 

I mean, WHO is he saying should be “held accountable” and how? 

Are we talking about suing the scientists who warned us? That’s the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian countries, not free democracies with free speech rights. Scientists should be free to give warning where they believe it is appropriate. And, in fact, this has been an ongoing issue with the Right, which is determined to discount any science that gets in the way of profit. From environmental regulation to climate change. I am concerned that the Right would prefer us to be more like China, where everything - including science - is expected to serve the regime and corporate interests. 

Also, let’s say that our drastic action actually works, and we shut down this pandemic. Do we punish the scientists because their advice worked? I mean, it’s hard to tell the difference between successful action and unnecessary action. (Although, you could look at the difference between South Korea and Italy in the actions and their results…) 

Okay, so maybe we don’t sue or prosecute scientists for this. Do we sue the media?

Again, this is what totalitarian regimes do. Not free democracies. But, again, note that Trump thinks (like totalitarians throughout history) that the press is “the enemy of the people.” That isn’t surprising. But to hear so-called conservatives argue for “holding the press accountable” is chilling. 

Again, let’s be honest about what this means in practice. We would be punishing the press for truthfully reporting what other countries are saying. (See above.) We would be punishing the press for reporting what scientists are saying. We would be punishing the press for failing to suppress information that is economically inconvenient. Think about that for a moment. 

Okay, so maybe we don’t punish the press. Maybe we just punish the elected officials who shut down schools and restaurants. 

This is at least not as politically chilling. We can vote out anyone we don’t like, and that is fine in the political sense. 

But think of this too: if a governor (or county government) makes a decision based on the scientific and medical information he or she has, why does that warrant punishment? Would we really prefer that all decisions be made based on the economy and the stock market? This is a lose-lose for elected officials and other decision makers. A pandemic doesn’t have a good result possible - either you leave everything open and let the disease spread or you shut things down and cause hardship. If given the choice, I would prefer that our leaders defer to science in areas in which science has the necessary information. I would certainly trust medical and epidemiological experts to have better advice than investment bankers when it comes to pandemics. And certainly more than a willfully ignorant narcissist who has a “gut feeling.” 

So, summary: it is unlikely that a dozen other countries are just making stuff up. This shit is real, and should be treated accordingly. And let’s stop already with talk of punishing the whistleblowers. That’s crazy, totalitarian talk, and is inappropriate in a democracy. 

We have a rough road ahead of us (particularly my wife and others on the front lines.) Let’s not make it worse with denialism, xenophobia, and calls to punish those trying to limit the damage. 

Old Mortality by Sir Walter Scott

Source of book: I own this. 

I have a running list of unjustly neglected authors from the past. These are men and women who have fallen out of fashion in our own times. Some have seen their reputations take a hit for one reason or another, but more simply aren’t read by much of anyone anymore. 

One of those authors is Sir Walter Scott. 

Scott should be remembered, if for no other reason, for founding the entire genre of historical fiction. And he was no hack either. He extensively researched his books, often citing the original sources where useful, and noting where the history ended and his fiction began. While not possessed of all the resources we have today, he made every attempt at authenticity. And even more than this, Scott is largely responsible for our modern views of Robin Hood, Queen Elizabeth I, Richard the Lion-hearted, Rob Roy, and others of British fame. 

I first read Scott in my teens, when I picked up Ivanhoe. That book, to my astonishment, contained much of Disney’s Robin Hood movie in its pages. From there, I have read a number of others. Since starting this blog, I reviewed Heart of Midlothian and The Lady of the Lake. 

Technically, Old Mortality wasn’t my first choice. I was going to read The Abbot, but a few pages in, it became clear that it was the second in a set of stories, of which The Monastery was the first. Since I didn’t own that one, I grabbed another, namely this one. I believe it was a good choice, a book considered one of Scott’s best - even if nobody seems to have heard of it. 

The book is set in the period of time between 1679 and 1689, during a Scottish uprising by the Covenanters. Which, well, I didn’t know much about, as I am neither Scottish nor Presbyterian. So, anyway, here is the background history:

After the death of Elizabeth I without an heir, the Tudor dynasty came to an end. The closest relative pursuant to the English system of royal succession turned out to be James Stuart VI of Scotland, also known as James I of England. Yes, King James should be familiar for the bible translation he commissioned, and for founding the Stuart dynasty. 

Thanks to John Knox, Scotland had its own Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots overthown. From that point, Presbyterianism became the official religion - and like the rest of Europe at the time, doctrine was enforced by the sword. 

The ascension of James I created difficulties, however. England’s religion was - post Henry VIII - the Church of England - Anglicanism. Which wasn’t particularly compatible with Presbyterianism. See, for just one example of a doctrine people killed for, the Calvinist/Arminian scism. James kind of let things ride. The Scots could do their thing, he would officially convert to the Church of England so he could run the thing, and the boat stayed mostly unrocked. 

His son, Charles I, on the other hand, teamed up with Archbishop Laud, and tried to force Anglicanism on the Scots. This did not go well. Protests, bloodshed, etc. And Charles I got to be unpopular in England too. Enter, the English Civil War (part 1). With the Irish Catholics likely to provide aid to the Royalists, Cromwell’s Roundheads enlisted the Scots via a document entitled The Solemn League and Covenant - which gave the Covenanters their name. Basically, the Scots would fight with the Puritans, and Presbyterianism would be adopted as the official religion of England. No, that didn’t go well either. 

So, after Cromwell’s rule crumbled after his death, and Charles II came back to England, the Covenant was outlawed, and so on. Fast forward to 1679. (I skipped a good bit here. For the English perspective on this period, I recommend George Trevelyan’s excellent book, England Under the Stuarts, although it only touches on the Scottish part of the history.) 

A compromise was reached, whereby certain Presbyterian ministers could get a license and a church, but only with the Crown’s blessing - and a pledge of loyalty. So, with the Covenanters being suppressed by Charles II, and the moderates labeled heretics by the die-hards, things were set to blow up. The Covenanters murdered Archbishop Sharp, and met the royalist troops in battle. These events form the center of Old Mortality, particularly the battles at Drumclog and Bothwell Bridge. For the specifics, Scott follows the contemporary accounts closely, while adding characters and details. About three quarters of the way through the book, these events come to a rather gruesome end - the rebels are defeated and either executed or exiled. The story then resumes ten years later when the protagonist comes back from exile after William and Mary ascend the throne and proclaim religious tolerance. The Covenanters attempted one final revolution, and were soundly defeated. From then on, separation of the Presbyterian Church from the British government was official and final. 

As with most of Scott’s books, the title Old Mortality has next to nothing to do with the book itself. “Old Mortality” is an invented character to set up the framing story. In this set of books, “Tales of my Landlord,” the anonymous Scott claims that these are tales told by his fictitious landlord. In this case, the landlord claims he heard them from “Old Mortality,” an ancient man who has dedicated his life to keeping the graves of the Covenanters in good repair. Obviously, the book isn’t much about him at all. He is there in the first chapter, and then he is gone for good. 

The plot itself centers on the romance between Henry Morton, the young son of a deceased Covenanter, and Edith Bellenden, the daughter of a loyalist. Henry would prefer to be left out of the wars altogether, but is drawn in when Covenanter John Balfour of Burley, on the run after the murder of Sharp, calls in a favor in the name of Morton’s father. Henry shelters him for the night, but is then arrested for treason as a result, even though he knew nothing of the murder. 

Side note here: Balfour was a real person, but he was NOT Balfour of Burley (Burleigh) - Scott made a mistake here. He meant Balfour of Kinloch - and even uses the name in a few places - who was indeed a Covenanter. It may be that either Burley sounded better, or Scott confused the two. 

As a result of circumstances, Morton gets freed and asked to help lead the Covenanters. He reluctantly agrees to do so, essentially leading the moderate party willing to settle for religious toleration, rather than a new theocracy, which is what Burley wants. 

This being Scott, you know at the outset that the lovers will get together eventually, and that the battles will play out roughly as they did in real life. But there is more than that. 

One of the things that has struck me about Scott over the years is that he is delightfully modern in sensibility. Sure, his writing style is very early 1800s, and his deference to the aristocracy seems a bit odd to us Americans. But his values are modern, and have aged extremely well. Better, in my view, than those of many later Victorian writers. 

Because Scott wrote historical novels, his characters are of their time in many ways. You won’t for example, find a modern feminist in the days of King Richard. But you will find marvelously strong and three dimensional female characters. (Um, hi there, Dickens…) Scott doesn’t place his women on a pedestal like a true Victorian either. He celebrates strong women, and shows the obvious that women have always run things more than patriarchists would prefer. 

The best values that Scott stands for are the moral and humane values. In every book - but particularly this one - he advocates for freedom of religion and conscience. He fully supports the separation of church and state, one of the greatest ideas mankind has had in the last five hundred years. And more than that, Scott shows respect for diversity, whether between the Anglican and the Presbyterian, or between Christianity and Islam. Scott assumes that men of good will are admirable even when they differ. 

Old Mortality, in particular, addresses the question of religious tolerance, and advocates strongly for the separation of church and state. I wrote down a number of quotes that resonated with me in our own times. First is this one, from the opening pages, where the fictitious landlord expounds on the Covenanters and their loyalist opponents. 

Although I am far from venerating the peculiar tenets asserted by those who call themselves the followers of those men, and whose intolerance and narrow-minded bigotry are at least as conspicuous as their devotional zeal, yet it is without depreciating the memory of those sufferers, many of whom  united the independent sentiments of a Hampden with the suffering zeal of a Hooper or Latimer.

Good lord, if you want to describe the Dominionists of today (who often claim a connection to the Covenanters) - or pretty much all of the Religious Right, that surely fits. Their devotional zeal is indeed overshadowed by their intolerance and bigotry expressed as political violence against everyone else. 

Henry Morton is clearly intended from the start to be the noble hero. Here is how Scott describes him. 

Henry Morton was one of those gifted characters which possess a force of talent unsuspected by the owner himself. He had inherited from his father an undaunted courage and a firm and uncompromising detestation of oppression, whether in politics or religion. But his enthusiasm was unsullied by fanatic zeal, and unleavened by the sourness of the Puritanical spirit. From these his mind had been freed, partly by the active exertions of his own excellent understanding, partly by frequent and long visits at Major Bellenden’s, where he had an opportunity of meeting with many guests whose conversation taught him that goodness and worth were not limited to those of any single form of religious observance. 

One hundred percent yes. Again, Scott proves to be both progressive and a direct rebuke to the religious (and racist) fanatics of our time. Hey, and Scott also completely nails a major source of the problem: a theonomic and literalist approach to scripture. Throughout the book, the Covenanters are continually “proof texting”: applying verses out of context in justification of abhorrent behavior. There is quite a generation gap here too, as Morton represents the more moderate younger generation, against the older, fanatical generation represented by Burley. Here is, in part, Morton’s response to Burley during a discussion of their goals. Morton wants freedom of conscience. Burley wants to purge the land of heretics. Morton listens, but notes that he is unmoved by the fanatical language. 

“I revere the Scriptures as deeply as you or any Christian can do. I look into them with humble hope of extracting a rule of conduct and a law of salvation. But I expect to find this by an examination of their general tenor, and of the spirit in which they uniformly breath, and not by wresting particular passages from their context, or by the application of Scriptural phrases to circumstances and events with which they have often very slender relation.” 

I find a lot of myself here. And to draw a necessary line, so did the abolitionists, who argued against a literal, theonomic defense of slavery using the “general tenor and spirit” argument. (See this post, as well as Mark Noll’s excellent book, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis for more.) In my experience - and in history, as Scott details - theonomy and literalism are used to weaponize scripture, and justify atrocities. Scott circles back to this idea near the end - see below. 

Scott, like many authors, chooses to name minor characters in ways that describe them. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the names used for the various preachers associated with the Covenanters. The most moderate (although not by that much) is Poundtext, while a more radical one is Kettledrummle. The craziest, though, is Habakkuk Mucklewrath, which is both fun to say, and deliciously Scottish. It is these preachers who combine with violent men like Burley to stir up the masses toward violence, alas. 

While Morton is the hero, he has a counterpart on the Loyalist side, Lord Evandale. Evandale shares a great deal with Morton, actually, as both acknowledge the legitimate grievances that the Presbyterians have suffered, and would like to see a humane compromise and peace. Evendale ends up receiving aid from Morton, and also from other compassionate Covenanters. He notes the aid from a peasant woman who aids him despite hating his side. 

“[S]he was in principle a rigid recusant, but she saw my danger and distress, considered me as a fellow-creature, and forgot that I was a Cavalier and a soldier.” 

Later, Evandale expresses his view of the political situation:

“I give you my honor, Major Bellenden, that I have been for some time of opinion that our politicians and prelates have driven matters to a painful extremity in this country, and have alienated, by violence of various kinds, not only the lower classes, but all those in the upper ranks whom strong party feeling or a desire of court interest does not attach to their standard.”

And yes, so very relevant today - but not in the way that my former Evangelical tribe believes. Rather it is they, the corrupt prelates, in unholy marriage with a violently oppressive political movement, who are alienating all those who abhor both political ambition and racist and religious violence. 

Again, Morton sounds the same call, in a letter to Bellenden: 

“My most earnest and anxious desire is to see this unnatural war brought to a speedy end by the union of the good, wise, and moderate of all parties, and a peace restored which...may substitute the authority of equal laws for that of military violence, and, permitting to all men to worship God according to their own consciences, may subdue fanatical enthusiasm by reason and mildness, instead of driving it to frenzy by persecution and intolerance.”

And later:

“I wish to have free exercise of my own religion, without insulting any other; and as to your family, I only desire an opportunity to show them I have the same friendship and kindness as ever.” 

This is all powerful stuff, and surely resonates today, in our own time, when a fanatical group in our nation wishes to impose its own purity rules on others, and is more concerned about purging heretics (and anyone outside their own tribe) than in showing love for neighbor. 

The problem for the Mortons and Evandales of the world, though, is that a mere call for decency and tolerance falls on deaf ears for the fanatics. They, like Fascists throughout history (that’s a whole other post…), have no use for modern Enlightenment values. Their values are that of tribalism, idolatry of the past, and worship of violence. Ultimately, they must first be defeated, politically, and sometimes militarily. Ultimately, all the peacemaking of Evandale and Morton goes to complete waste. It is left to the Crown to utterly crush the Covenanters, and deprive them of political power. 

But this is only part of the story. The Covenanters didn’t actually go away; they just went underground. And they continued to insist on the restoration of the Solemn League and Covenant - the establishment of a theocracy. They railed against the edicts of tolerance issued by the Crown.

The principles of indulgence thus espoused and gloried in by the government gave great offense to the more violent party who condemned them as diametrically contrary to Scripture; for which narrow-spirited doctrine they cited various texts, all, as it may well be supposed, detached from their context, and most of them derived from the charges given to the Jews in the promised land. 

Um, yep. America Scotland as the new Israel, and Fundamentalist Calvinist doctrine as the only True Christianity™, and the call for violence and political crushing of everyone else. The theonomic and literalist use of Scripture. The more things change…

But Scott also notes that the Covenanters bore the seeds of their own destruction. And perhaps suggests a constructive way forward. First, obviously, the fanatics and hatemongers have to be deprived of political and military power. But after that is done (as in the case of the Nazis), the key is to defuse the next generation. The Burleys of the world - I would say the white Evangelical Baby Boomers of today as an analogy - will mostly never change. They will spit hate to the end of their days, dream of crushing their enemies, and long for the days when they were in power. Just like Burley. But the next generation won’t be with them. 

Scott notes the result of the edicts of William and Mary. The average Scot didn’t understand their fanaticism and persecution complex. Life was basically good. They could worship as they pleased, and the idea of a Puritanical theocracy looked increasingly ludicrous to them. Without the legitimate persecution, the Covenanters became either a laughingstock, or, like Old Mortality himself, and anachronism of a bygone age. 

We are seeing this play out as we speak. As Boomer (white) Evangelicals sell their souls to a racist demagogue and a pack of anti-Christian xenophobic theocrats, their grandchildren are fleeing the insanity. 

Sir Walter Scott, writing more than 200 years ago, got it right. Those who are most concerned with “doctrinal purity” are the exact same people who lust to do violence to those outside the “pure” tribe. For some weird reason, a belief that God is obsessed with purity leads to actions to purge the “filthy” Others from the faith - and indeed existence itself. Scott also gives some hope: that after the fires of hate and violence are isolated and die out, a better day can dawn, and the Mortons and Evandales can ultimately win out over the Burleys and Kettledrummles of the world. 

***

Just a note for Scott neophytes: 

Although many of the “Waverly” novels are quite good, I wouldn’t necessarily start with them. Old Mortality, like Heart of Midlothian and others, contain quite a bit of dialect. I found that my collection of Robert Burns’ poetry was helpful, as it has an extensive glossary in the back. Basically, Scott’s language and style take some getting used to even without the language barrier. 

If I had to pick one to start with, I would go with the well known trifecta: Ivanhoe, The Talisman, or Kenilworth. Any of these are a good introduction to Scott. One possible alternative option would be Quentin Durward, which has little to do with the title character, and everything to do with Louis XI of France, and the transition from Feudalism to Modernism. Although it does lack interesting female characters. For those, well, Ivanhoe and Heart of Midlothian are excellent...